First,
as to Plaintiff's Motion Seeking a Ruling as to
Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff contends in his motion for
reconsideration that he raised, in his Amended Complaint, a
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on his
allegation that Defendants rejected and then destroyed some
of Plaintiff's incoming and outgoing mail to and from
family and friends without providing notice or an opportunity
to appeal. Plaintiff contends that the Court did not address
this particular claim on initial screening, and he wishes to
pursue this claim. The Court will grant the motion for
reconsideration and allow Plaintiff to pursue this claim.
Therefore, the parties are advised that this claim should be
addressed in any dispositive motions to be filed by the
parties.

Next as
to Plaintiff's two separately filed Motions for Leave to
File a Supplemental Pleading, Plaintiff states that he would
like to supplement his Complaint, pursuant to Rule 15(d) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to allege various,
additional, factual allegations of retaliation by various
Defendants since the filing of this action. Rule 15(d) allows
a party to “serve a supplemental pleading setting out
any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the
date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Where a
plaintiff seeks to supplement a pleading to add related
claims against the same defendants, the analysis under Rule
15(a) and Rule 15(d) is the same. See Franks v.
Ross, 313 F.3d 184, 198 n.15 (4th Cir. 2002)
(“[T]he standards used by a district court in ruling on
a motion to amend or on a motion to supplement are nearly
identical.”). In either situation, leave should be
freely granted, and should be denied only on the grounds of
prejudice, bad faith, or futility. Laber v. Harvey,
438 F.3d 404, 426-27 (4th Cir. 2006). The Court will grant
Plaintiff's motions to supplement.

Next,
as to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery, filed on January
29, 2018, Plaintiff states that he seeks 120 days in which to
conduct discovery. On March 7, 2018, this Court filed a
scheduling order, setting the deadline for discovery as July
5, 2018, thus giving the parties 120 days from the
Court's order in which to conduct discovery. The Court
will, therefore, deny Plaintiff's motion for discovery as
moot.

Next,
as to Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Discovery, filed on
March 21, 2018, Plaintiff states that he seeks a “stay
of discovery” until the Court rules on Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration seeking to pursue his Fourteenth
Amendment claim, as discussed above. The Court will deny the
motion for discovery, as the parties still have ample time
before the discovery deadline in which to conduct discovery
as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Next,
as to Plaintiff's Motion to Expand Discovery, also filed
on March 21, 2018, Plaintiff contends that, “[d]ue to
the specifics of this case, including the extent of the
issues and acts and number of defendants, Plaintiff submits
that this Court should allow in a modified discovery order
the following: 25 interrogatories per defendant pursuant to
Rule 33 Fed. R. Civ. P., 50 requests for admissions per
defendant; 10 depositions by written questions; and an
unlimited number of requests for production of
documents.” (Doc. No. 35 at 4). The Court will deny
Plaintiff's motion, as the discovery allowed by the
Court's scheduling order allows ample discovery from the
parties.

Next,
as to Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of Judge, Plaintiff
seeks recusal of the undersigned for various reasons,
including that the undersigned has not yet ruled on the
various motions that the Court is now addressing. The Court
will deny the motion to recuse. A judge may be recused for
personal bias or prejudice, having a familial or fiduciary
interest in the proceeding, having personal knowledge of
disputed facts, or having a conflict of interest from his
prior practice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455.
Plaintiff has not asserted sufficient facts setting forth
grounds for disqualification of the undersigned under either
28 U.S.C. § 144 or § 455.[1]See Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (noting that prior
judicial rulings alone are not a basis for a motion for
recusal on the grounds of bias or partiality). “[T]he
nature of the judge's bias must be personal and not
judicial.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th
Cir. 1987). In sum, for the reasons stated herein, the motion
for recusal is denied.

Finally,
as to Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, in support
of the motion, Plaintiff states, among other things, that he
cannot afford counsel; his imprisonment will greatly limit
his ability to litigate the issues; the issues are complex;
he has limited access to the law library and limited
knowledge of the law; a trial would involve conflicting
testimony; and he has tried to obtain an attorney to no
avail. (Id. at 1). There is no absolute right to the
appointment of counsel in civil actions such as this one.
Therefore, a plaintiff must present “exceptional
circumstances” in order to require the Court to seek
the assistance of a private attorney for a plaintiff who is
unable to afford counsel. Miller v. Simmons, 814
F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987). Notwithstanding
Plaintiff's contentions to the contrary, this case does
not present exceptional circumstances that justify
appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint Counsel will be denied.

IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion Seeking a Ruling as to Fourteenth
Amendment re Order on Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. No.
27) is GRANTED;

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.